Comments by "RR OO" (@RROO-qy8je) on "The Aesthetic City" channel.

Modernist architecture should already be considered old architecture. We've had the same modernist architecture for about 60 years now. For example Art Nouveau and Art Deco developed around the same time Modernist architecture has so they technically could be considered new modern architecture the same way modernist architecture is considered new. Art Nouveau and Art Deco are a great example of modern architecture using modern materials that looks good. Its very possible. And we live in the best times to do this. We are more advanced than ever and can build buildings twice as fast as we did in the past. There even are robots that can build detailed ornaments very efficiently. Going back in time to copy architecture isnt the best option but it surely is a great start. We first need to get used to classical architecture again and then continue from then on designing new architecture styles using modern materials and building techniques. This literally is how its been done all throughout history. They looked back at the previous architecture styles and improved them with new designs. But the main framework was the same which is what matters. The main design rule should be to use Classical proportions. From there on you can invent millions of new architecture styles. Maybe ive written too much but i hope people will get the point and will try to be more open minded about this topic.
291
0:55 Actually thats very true. Sure Skyscrapers can house more people but a ton of space is wasted since you cant have Skyscrapers too close to each other because sunlight wont reach the lower windows. Cities should have buildings that are tall enough to house as many people but short enough to let sunlight reach the ground floor windows.
9
It just shows that money and intelligence dont always go hand in hand. They may have billions maybe even trillions of dollars but they dont even know how to design a functional city.
9
@the_aesthetic_city I know the answer for that. Profit. We live in a capitalist world where everyone only cares about making as much profit as possible. But that sadly leads to them using the ugliest cheapest materials that not only make the buildings uglier but also make them lower quality. We arent slaves that deserve to live in the cheapest buildings possible. We are human beings after all. And we are underusing all this advanced technology that we have. We could build classical buildings twice as fast as they did in the past. Looking to the past we can see people were much poorer than we are now. Yet they still put effort into making their house as beautiful as possible. Even though they didnt have much money they still spent it on beautfiul deorations. They were proud of the buildings they built.
5
@african8855 Sure they look much better than boring modernist buildings. But they could be better. The main problem with modernist buildings is the proportions they use. A building can use as much ornamentation as it wants but if the proportions of the building are odd then it will look weird. But thats not really the architects fault. Its the architecture schools fault. They dont teach architects how to use proportions in design. Adding classical proportions to buildings costs zero dollars but they are very important. What we need to do is first teach architects the classical proportions again, study all the previous architecture styles and go from then on with new styles.
4
Obviously buildings in the past also had their flaws. No building is ever perfect. But we live in a modern world now. Look all over Europe and you can see traditional buildings restored with modern appliances. The beauty of the buildings isnt what caused the poverty. It was the poor interiors and lack of important amenities. Sure we currently have a housing crisis but that isnt really the reason why beautiful buildings arent possible. A housing crisis has existed for decades which means beauty doesnt have anything to do with the housing crisis. We can build traditional buildings as fast and as cheap as modernist buildings. They even found a way to mass produce ornamentation with fast machinery. But lets say modernist buildings are cheaper. Are we forever gonna build temporary cheap buildings to temporarily solve the housing crisis? Or should we look towards building beautiful buildings that will last for ages?
3
@Marwan-_-7m Obviously. Bad city designg originated in USA. Dubai was literally inspired by American cities and suburbs.
2
@NickAndriadze No its not. Its actually the worst of the modernist architecture. As someone who lives in a country full of commie blocks i think i have the right to say this about them. They are depressing. You mentioned Originality. Since when is originality important in architecture? We are designing a city after all and not an art gallery. Sure buildings shouldnt be a copy and paste of the other buildings. They should have their own unique design but overall they all should look good together. They shouldnt stand out. Originality is indeed necessary but from what youre commenting i feel like youre talking about an excessive form of originality.
2
@olliestudio45 Yes i totally agree. There are many traditional buildings that have very little detail or ornamentation but still look very good. Proportions and natural materials are the main components of making a building look pleasent. Modernist architecture is the exact opposite of nature. It uses literally no design rules. They just design random shapes using no design technique. It also uses sharp corners and straight edges that are not found anywhere in nature. And the materials are made out of glass and steel which are materials made by humans. And like you said nature definetely make a building more lively and pleasent. So the conclusion is that modernist architecture has nothing to do with nature and we need to find a better alternative.
2
@NickAndriadze I completetly agree with you. I never said we should demolish them. I said the construction of them was a mistake and we should stop building them. Because commie blocks were also seen futuristic when they were first built but now that time has passed we finally realized how ugly and depressing they really are. I guarantee the same is gonna happen with modernist architecture in a few years. But people dont realize this. The main problem is that there isnt an alternative to modernist architecture. We dont have a new architecture style thats different from modernism. Which leads people to think this is our only option. Its using new materials and unique shapes which makes them think its futuristic therefore they think its interesting.
2
Modernist architecture wasnt progress in the first place. It was something completely different. Progress means you improve on the previous thing. Modernist completely reinvented it which was unnecessary. Technically Brandevoort is and it isnt just a copy of the old architecture. It improved the old architecture by adding modern appliances which is still considered progress so the argument for goinh backwards isnt really true.
1
@jonathanjones3126 Thats a very dumb statement. Just because there is green space doesnt mean the whole idea is climate friendly. Glass skyscrapers are bad for birds and they even melt cars in the summer. If you wanna be enviromentally friendly then go all the way. The most enviromentally friendly way to build is out of natural materials and like you said adding green spaces aswell. Is it more expensive and harder to build? Yes. Is it the best build technique for the enviroment? Also Yes. We sadly cant have both. You can build as many skyscrapers with plants on them as you want. But there still will be a better alternative for the enviroment than that.
1
@jonathanjones3126 Do you seriously associate natural materials with caves? Also how come all the 1000 year old buildings are All made of natural materials? Skyscrapers with green spaces in between is very wasteful because its not like those green spaces are actual forests that support any biodiversity. Its just dead space with a few trees plopped onto it. If we make all our cities sprawled like this we would eventually have no more space left on this planet. We need a balance. Dense cities sepparated from big open nature filled with wildlife. Nature cant live along humans. Now when i say dense cities i dont mean Kowloon walled city type cities. Like i said before we need a balance in everything. Just dense enough to maximize the use of space but not too dense where its basically a slum.
1
@jonathanjones3126 Of course Adobe buildings dont survive in rainy places. Adobe buildings are meant to be built in the desert where it never rains. Also when i said natural materials i didnt say everything thats natural needs to be used in buildings. I dont want dirt houses. I mean natural materials like wood, stone, sandstone, etc. I totally agree with you on the suburban sprawl thing. Like i said previously we need to build more dense in order to leave more space for wild areas. I never said im against parks. I said im against spacing out buildings with massive parks in between. Thats basically the same thing as suburban sprawl. We need dense cities, with parks obviously that dont take up too much space. We are slowly running out of space anyway. Our earth isnt infinite. And at least half of the earths surface should remain wild. "You can build large dense areas that are nice to live in, it cost more money but is very doable." Thats literally what ive been saying.
1
@MrBsehratmaannking This whole thing was such a waste tho. Cities worked perfectly fine back then. Sure they werent perfect and had some flaws but overall they were pretty good since city design had thousands of years of experimentation and improvements. But then the modernists came and decided to completely reinvent the wheel for absolutely no reason. Why reinvent something that already works. What we shouldve done was to just improve upon the already existing city design principles. We keep thinking we are better and smarter than the people from the past which leads to us making these type of mystakes. The saying "Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It” fits perfectly to this topic.
1
@AL-lh2ht Im not talking about the wealth of the people. Im talking about the city design. Your capitalist mind only thinks about money. People who live in the city may be rich but the city itself is very inconvenient and poorly designed. You can be a billionaire but you still have to traverse a massive highway in order to get to the grocery store. Thats inconvenient and poor design.
1
@NickAndriadze Im talking about the majority of residential buildings. Those are the ones that make up the majority of the city. Also youre probably one of the rare group of people that live in cities with commie blocks that also like Brutalism.The majority of people absolutely despise these buildings. Yes the Neoclassical buildings stand out because theres very few of them. But dont you remember that they were build before the Concrete blocks. So basically the concrete blocks are the ones that stand out and should be taken down. They demolished the Neoclassical buildings to make way for those blocks.
1
@NickAndriadze I do agree very much with your statement. Commie blocks definetely were necessary. But now its been a long time since the last major war and i would say a majority of the countries are doing way better than before. Though i do find temporary housing to be a bad idea. In the context of World war 2 it was smart but going forwards i hope we dont do it again. Building buildings that only last for a few years is a waste of materials and is bad for the planet. Instead we should focus on making buildings out of natural materials that automatically last longer and design them in the same way classical buildings were built where the building can have different uses. For example traditional industrial buildings were turned into housing. I dont imagine someone would ever wanna live in a brutalist power plant turned into housing.
1
@ibrett9912 Thats even better for my point. Either way its been a very long time and we still havent invented something new. I guess we arent as smart and innovative as we thought we were.
1
@clarity2118 Yes but given that we live in a society where quite a lot of people are Atheists and dont believe in anything it explains why they have no inspiration and dont care about making beautiful buildings. They only care about the money which leads them to build the cheapest ugliest buildings because they cost less and make more profit.
1